[X] My Assistant

[Irion]

@Yerameyahu

My point is that throwing grenades and sending a fire spirit is easy and safe. Evacuation and nonlethal takedown of the whole building? Not easy, not safe. If the run were harder, they couldn't *afford* to do it the nice way.

Yes, if you just look at the deed itself.

But as soons as you look at the aftermatch it looks quite different.
Not many people will look twice for a bunch of burned drugs. (Maybe the guys the drugs belong to)
But the explosion of a drug lab with several civilian casualties.

[Faraday]

Plus, selling them is likely to piss off local drug lords. For ... change, at best.

In the OP's scenario, burning the drugs certainly was the professional choice. Now, if there had been, say, 100 doses of Deepweed lying about? To burn that would be ... well, a bit on the self mutilation side.

What would you do with 50 kg of novacoke and specific contacts who are potentially interested in buying in bulk?

[Machiavelli]

Enhanced skills give you more options, thats for sure. If you are a low level runner you cannot afford accepting risks because you want to be nice. If you want to survive (which is difficult enough) it´s them or you. So we all should start powergaming to make the world a safer place.^^

[Yerameyahu]

I *am* just looking at the deed itself. That's what we're talking about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Anyone suspicious enough to care about the drugs wouldn't believe they were really burned anyway, and presumably Plan A called for the whole place (drugs included) to be burned in the first place. I'm also assuming they didn't choose Plan B in order to burn the drugs, but instead to save the collateral.

I assume the explosion of a drug lab with 'civilian' casualties is dog-bites-man for gangland, so we're not talking about them deciding on the option that involved less aftermath. They're deniable assets. So. They made a bleeding-heart plan, and followed it with a non-greedy chaser. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The former enabled the latter, and the former would be impossible if the run were harder.

[hermit]

What would you do with 50 kg of novacoke and specific contacts who are potentially interested in buying in bulk?

That's assuming you have a contact in the drug trade. If you only have a generic fixer (who arguably is not deep in the drug trade), possibly burn it, because we'b be talking about some 10% of listed price, which is peanuts for the effort needed, and not worth attracting the attention of mobsters who don't like anyone messing with their drug trade.

If you happen to have a contact with the local drug ring, who deals in this anyway and is interested in buying, sell it if I get a price that makes it worth transporting 50 kg of drugs across the sprawl. Otherwise, it's probably just not worth risk and effort you'd have to invest.

[Machiavelli]

I agreed with you on that. Maybe i didn´t make it completely clear.^^

[Yerameyahu]

Sorry, Machiavelli. I was still responding to Irion, not you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Anyway, runners need Jazz for themselves! Who cares about selling drugs? Hehehe.

[Machiavelli]

Now it´t getting clear. Isn´t Jazz this "gives an additional IP"-thing? In this case: right.^^

[Ascalaphus]

And of course people's ethics don't have to be consistent. You can be a guy who kills people for money, and yet feel bad for accidentally saying a racial slur to someone sitting next to you on the train.

People don't like to think of themselves as Bad Guys, so they compartmentalize, and rationalize: "shooting this guy is acceptable, because he's really a nasty piece of work, and I need to make a living too", while also being a decent guy the rest of the time.

[Irion]

And of course people's ethics don't have to be consistent. You can be a guy who kills people for money, and yet feel bad for accidentally saying a racial slur to someone sitting next to you on the train.

There are examples for that. People who keep their privat and professional life sperated. (To the extream)

But staying on one level is more than impossible.

You always try to justifiy your acts. And to justify the last you commit the next. And it is getting worse and worse.

[James McMurray]

No such thing as "too good." If they want to be loner heroes in a dystopian future, let them. The world will react according to their actions.

This part is my only concern:

... even explaining their actions to the biker leader.

Did they rat out the Johnson? That can get them in some deep drek. If they just said "somebody doesn't like your kind in this neighborhood" then there's no problem. If they said "Clarence Townsman doesn't want you here" then they're in trouble.

[suoq]

You always try to justifiy your acts. And to justify the last you commit the next. And it is getting worse and worse.

Maybe that's what you do.

Some people seek redemption. To atone for their last act, their past mistakes, they commit acts of self-sacrifice and try to make the world a better place. They take the bad thing that happened to them as a kid and instead of using it as justification as evil, they use it as inspiration for good. They try to see that the world isn't as bad for the next kid as it was for them. They regret their mistakes and while they can't change the past, they can make different decisions in the future.

Characters don't have to be bastards.

[Irion]

@suoq
So somebody how does not kill, does not justify it. O lord, I would have never thought of that.

Yes, there is always a way out. It is just hardly possible to remain at one level.

The best example is often vigilanty justice.
You start by killing a druglord or some childkiller. It is good, because you saved Children/made the world a better place blablabla.
But it mostly does not keep that way. There will be an other druglord, an other murderer.
So you kill him too. Becaues if you don't the first kill won't be justifiable.
And so on and on.

Some people seek redemption.

For that you would need to admit, that you are bad first. Thats not that easy.Most people can't.

[LurkerOutThere]

I do love all this binary thinking. You can choose never to kill anyone, Shadowrun gives you a variety of non lethal but ridiculously effective take downs. Further it also provides a variety of non-lethal but permanent ways to deal with people. Want someone never to pick up the drug trade again the right ware, brainwashing, or spells can make that a reality, it's all about the level of effort your willing to put in.

Truth be told as others said I think the runners made the tactically correct decision, they'd rather not complicate their mission and sit on a bunch of drugs for potentially minimal profit, that makes sense to me. As for giving the gang leader a good talking to, depending what was discussed that seems fine too, some people only understand violence and dictates of strength.

Personally I can understand people having aversions to killing, even in shadowrun, I can also believe that a person can kill without being a bad person, especially by the dictates of the setting. They don't need to justify their actions to anyone but themmselves, their teammates, and their J in that order. Those are the three requirements for work, everything else is just details and quality of life.

[suoq]

For that you would need to admit, that you are bad first. Thats not that easy.Most people can't.

No. You don't have to admit you are "bad". You just have to decide to be something different than what you were.

Here's a quote from a man who's been in every penitentiary in the state of California and was the welterweight boxing champion of San Quentin: "When I devoted my life to helping other people, that's when things started getting better for me". - Danny Trejo

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Champion/70038785

[Irion]

You don't have to admit you are "bad". You just have to decide to be something different than what you were.

So you say to yourself: Killing people is good, but now I am doing something else good?

To change your live you first have to want to abbandon your old life.

[LurkerOutThere]

Anyone else having trouble understanding the point Irions trying to make here? Could you clarify?

[James McMurray]

Anyone else having trouble understanding the point Irions trying to make here? Could you clarify?

I think he's saying that changing your life is hard and that you can't do it unless you want to. As to what it has to do with imaginary people burning a bunch of imaginary drugs? No clue.

[hermit]

Anyone else having trouble understanding the point Irions trying to make here? Could you clarify?

I think he's trying to say that by wanting to change your life, you have to recognise the evilness of your old ways before, or else you would not want to change your life, after all.

And I have to say I diagree. There are a lot more motivations to change your life from being a mass-slaughtering gunbunny to a sworn user of tasers, gammascop and sticknshock than "good" and "evil" (which are very subjective concepts to begin with). Like, having to flee from your one criminal life in one city for shooting the wrong person in the face and not wanting to repeat that mistake. Doesn't mean you think shooting the don's baby boy was evil (necessarily, at least), could also just be a notion of "gee, people get so damn upset when I nshoot their kids in the face and so much less when I just taser them!"

Said (rather extreme) sociopath doesn't consider shooting the Don's son in the face evil, but he considers it a mistake he doesn'T want to repeat for the heat it brought down on him.

[James McMurray]

And I have to say I diagree. There are a lot more motivations to change your life from being a mass-slaughtering gunbunny to a sworn user of tasers, gammascop and sticknshock than "good" and "evil" (which are very subjective concepts to begin with). Like, having to flee from your one criminal life in one city for shooting the wrong person in the face and not wanting to repeat that mistake.

Or having read all the studies and realized just how powerful nonlethal weaponry can be compared to the lethal stuff. If you're knocking them out with your bullets you have a lot more time to kill them slowly with your scalpels. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Irion]

Simple statements:
There are not much options out there.

If you have accepted a certain level of crualty you will very likly drift down.

The only possibility to change direction is to admit, that what you did was wrong.
Thats not very easy, because nobody sees himself as evil.

It is like every unstable balance it will fall, sooner or later if you do nothing to stabalize it.

I can also believe that a person can kill without being a bad person, especially by the dictates of the setting.

Kill, possibly. Murder? Very unlikely.

@hermit

Doesn't mean you think shooting the don's baby boy was evil (necessarily, at least), could also just be a notion of "gee, people get so damn upset when I nshoot their kids in the face and so much less when I just taser them!"

Well, you just found a more effective way. You will still fall back to your old ways if it seems the better part.

[hermit]

Or having read all the studies and realized just how powerful nonlethal weaponry can be compared to the lethal stuff. If you're knocking them out with your bullets you have a lot more time to kill them slowly with your scalpels. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Not to mention interrogate them, loot their accounts dry, thoroughly test the limits to which they'll get mortgages, then douse them with Laés, and arrange it like they were out on a severely drunken night. Really, why kill people and leave all the money on their accounts?! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

There are not much options out there. If you have accepted a certain level of crualty you will very likly drift down. (...) The only possibility to change direction is to admit, that what you did was wrong.

Moralising much?

Kill, possibly. Murder? Very unlikely.

The difference between intended killing (we're not talking about car accidents here, are we?) and murder being?

Well, you just found a more effective way. You will still fall back to your old ways if it seems the better part.

Of course, I never said this was the kind of moral shift you obviously think is necessary. If you're a killer who has to remain in hiding, though, resuming to kill left, right and center is a phenomenally bad idea.

And unless you have some cmpulsion killing people, why should you kill more than necessary anyway. Killing people is a messy business and usually attracts fare more trouble than is worth, from the corpsec swearing oaths to the kami to bring chief Kobayashi's killer to justice to an angry kid devoting themselves to grow up a killer and get you just desserts, to what happens to copkillers. It doesn't need superior morals to not kill loads of people. It just needs an awareness that the best path in crime usually is the path of least resistance.

[LurkerOutThere]

And what do you base this on your conjecture seems wodnerfully free standing.

There are habitual criminals that never cross the murder barier instead doing a variety of petty crimes their whole life. There are soldiers who come back from war and never kill again (and those who keep killing to be fair). There are those who rape but don't murder, even when it is chillingly in their best interests to do so.

As hermit said, you don't even have to admit that what you did was wrong, you just have to conclude that there are reasons not to do it anymore.

[Irion]

@hermit

The difference between intended killing (we're not talking about car accidents here, are we?) and murder being?

Killing might be self defance etc. etc. etc. Murder is defined a bit stricter.


@LurkerOutThere
If you have 1000000 people capable of murder. Only a very small percentage of those will murder someone.

If somebody killed his wife he ran out of wifes to kill a time. The question is, if he would do it the same way again?

There are soldiers who come back from war and never kill again

Well, and most of them need pschological care to deal with what they did and saw.

[CanRay]

All my characters have their limits. Most are in the "Yeah, I'll kill someone, it's the job" category.

A few are a little bit more twisted. Surprisingly, the one whose religion involves killing your enemies has a Masters Degree in Business Ethics.

One would destroy every chemical drug he could get his hands on, but doesn't balk at Chips. After all, someone can force drugs into your veins and get you hooked, you have to willingly get a datajack for BTLs (I don't think Trodes give enough of a OOMPH for BTL to work right. It's a gateway method to BTL, however.).

Another is just angry as hell and would destroy things more out of spite than any real moralistic intentions. And it's really, *REALLY* easy to slot him off.

Yet another smuggled drugs for a living until an electrical fire set a half-ton bundle of prime Hawai'ian Deepweed on fire and hotboxed the GMC Banshee.

It's all about the individual and their own moralistic code.

Don't forget Twist, the infamous Pacifistic Shadowrunner who only carried a Narcojet Pistol. Yes yes, not everyone likes him, but he's cannon and a good character in a lot of ways.